• Given the emphasis to be in compliance with OCR, what programs will replace SAFE?
• Will these programs connect underserved students with teachers?
• All research shows that strengthening this relationship has the greatest impact.
• How will students be encouraged and supported in taking rigorous coursework?
• Who are the community partners and how will they work with the equity specialists? What relationships and agreements are in place? SAFE is part of a community network focused on similar goals. Is it in the best interest of the district and the community to disrupt this network in favor of an unknown?
• Has anyone asked the students, teachers, and principals what they think about the SAFE Program being cut?
• Are there any potential inequities in this new plan to replace SAFE with an unknown? Does this help or harm the 110 students who were receiving quality programming?
• How will the district measure success?

• How will progress be reported to ensure that the students in most need are getting support?
• How will the 110 students served by SAFE this year continue to receive both the opportunities and supports they have come to expect in SAFE? Please ask for details.
• How will students achieve if they go from the SAFE Program with its focus on skill development and career preparation to talking circles?

These are my notes and impressions from the RPS June 17 Listening Meeting

• Question: Given the emphasis to be in compliance with OCR, what programs will replace SAFE?
  
• RPS Response: "SAFE" content would remain just that its delivery is changing.
  
• My impression: Not really clear who really owns this new SAFE content.
  

• Question: Will these programs connect underserved students with teachers?
  
• RPS Response: Confident they will be. For example, Mayo HS's social worker, Juan, will continue to connect with students and teachers. SAFE as a program with dedicated admin did not make it into the new budget. The newly appointed Equity Specialists will also pay a role.
  
• My impression: Not really clear who really owns this new SAFE content. Is there too much faith that no coodination is needed?
  

• Question: All research shows that strengthening this relationship has the greatest impact. How will students be encouraged and supported in taking rigorous coursework?
• RPS Response: They have confidence the newly formed "team" will continue with the SAFE mission if not its prior structure.
  
• My impression: Not clear. But they feel they can.
  

• Question: Who are the community partners and how will they work with the equity specialists? What relationships and agreements are in place? SAFE is part of a community network focused on similar goals. Is it in the best interest of the district and the community to disrupt this network in favor of an unknown?
  
• RPS Response: Same partners should remain from the connections previously made and will continue to be used. Equity Specialists will play a role.
  

• Question: Has anyone asked the students, teachers, and principals what they think about the SAFE Program being cut? (Question was not asked)
  
• RPS Response:
  
• My assessment: Based on lack of official communication to Commission I would conclude that a better communication protocol should have been exercised.
  

• Are there any potential inequities in this new plan to replace SAFE with an unknown? Does this help or harm the 110 students who were receiving quality programming?
  

• RPS Response: The current students will continue to receive equivalent quality programming via the new structure.

• My impression: A distributed model in theory could be made to work. But as one of the attendees said, having been a teacher, she was so glad to finally see a SAFE coordination structure to ensure sharing of best practices, strategies and connection. Before SAFE, it was left to each school's own device. It was not optimal and confusing.
  

• How will the district measure success?
• RPS Response: Not very clear. United Way had received reporting before. Same data would be collected presumably. Juan (Mayo social worker) cited anecdotal stories (and very compelling).
  
• My impression: RPS does not seem to have accountability data readily available stakeholders. They do have anecdotal evidence which they don't seem to share with the public or the volunteers (at least via the web). I expressed my concern the lack of visible accountability will only get worse.
  

• How will progress be reported to ensure that the students in most need are getting support?
• RPS Response: same as above.
  

• How will the 110 students served by SAFE this year continue to receive both the opportunities and supports they have come to expect in SAFE?
• RPS Response: same as above.
  

Community members expressed concern:

1. Lack of formal communication:

Folks heard the elimination through the grapevine. Not a proper way to interlock with concerned community partners and citiizens and volunteers.

Let alone the 100 plus students.

Caught many of the stakeholders by surprise. Concerned the lack of communication will cast doubts to students as to RPS commitment.

2. Why there is no "name" for the "new program"?

Why not just keep the SAFE name? If supposedly the same support is available just via a different delivery method.

3. Lack of accountability and explanation of SAFE program from RPS.

Not visible at least to volunteers and community members.

Would the future be the same?

4. Didn't the passing of the referendum suppose to ensure no RPS support cuts?